Jan Wieck wrote: > On 2/7/2007 10:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I find the term "logical proof of it's correctness" too restrictive. It > > sounds like some formal academic process that really doesn't work well > > for us. > > Thank you. > > > Also, I saw the trigger patch with no explaination of why it was > > important or who would use it --- that also isn't going to fly well. > > You didn't respond to my explanation how the current Slony > implementation could improve and evolve using it. Are you missing > something? I am discussing this very issue with our own QA department, > and thus far, I think I have a majority of "would use a pg_trigger > backpatched PostgreSQL" vs. "No, I prefer a system that knows exactly > how it corrupted my system catalog".
No, I _now_ understand the use case, but when the patch was posted, the use case was missing. I would like to see a repost with the patch, and a description of its use so we can all move forward on that. > > As far as TOAST, there is no question in my mind that TOAST development > > would happen the same way today as it did when we did it in 2001 --- we > > have a problem, how can we fix it. > > Looking at what did happen back then and what happens in this case, I do > see a difference. There were concerns about the compression algorithm > used ... it still is today what was the first incarnation and nobody > ever bothered to even investigate if there could possibly be any better > thing. Do you think lzcompress is the best we can come up with? I don't! > So why is it still the thing used? Maybe it is good enough? It is simple/stupid enough, I would say, and the compression space is a mine-field of patents. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
